From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Thompson, David" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Suggest `guix.scm' for upstream maintainers. Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:40:59 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87twkfcprd.fsf@drakenvlieg.flower> <87y49qtj4p.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54128) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ae4a6-0000Dr-PD for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:41:03 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ae4a5-0005lf-Rg for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:41:02 -0500 Received: from mail-yw0-x229.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4002:c05::229]:33659) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ae4a5-0005kz-Of for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:41:01 -0500 Received: by mail-yw0-x229.google.com with SMTP id d65so73715341ywb.0 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:41:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87y49qtj4p.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote= : > Jan Nieuwenhuizen skribis: > >> From fc6dd2108dae76e09e1bfcd6d04c36943469434f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen >> Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 22:18:48 +0100 >> Subject: [PATCH] Suggest `guix.scm' for upstream maintainers. >> >> * doc/guix.texi (Invoking guix package): Suggest `guix.scm'. >> --- >> doc/guix.texi | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/doc/guix.texi b/doc/guix.texi >> index 06b40fa..f23c7fc 100644 >> --- a/doc/guix.texi >> +++ b/doc/guix.texi >> @@ -1350,7 +1350,7 @@ As an example, @var{file} might contain a definiti= on like this >> @verbatiminclude package-hello.scm >> @end example >> >> -Developers may find it useful to include such a @file{package.scm} file >> +Developers may find it useful to include such a @file{guix.scm} file > > Fine with me, but what=E2=80=99s the rationale? I think we need Dave=E2= =80=99s approval > on this crucial part. :-) I approve! For background, I used to use 'package.scm' files, but jao from the Geiser project suggested 'guix.scm' for better clarity considering that there are other Scheme-only packaging systems out there and it might be confusing. I thought it was a fine idea so I've switched to using 'guix.scm' everywhere. I think it's a good convention to recommend. - Dave